[WS:] One would think so, but my hunch is that political proximities are determined not as much by standing on specific issues but by cognitive framing - which is pre-rational in the sense of predetermining how specifics are perceived by attaching different priorities, weights, selective filtering etc. There are several different cognitive frames in operation (cf. George Lakoff's book "Moral politics") on the political spectrum from right to left. One of them is left-wing populism that combines a certain form of anti-intellectualism and anti-institutionalism with a personal attitude that can be described as a public display of conspicuous earnest commitment (PDCEC), which is also known as holier-than-thou attitude. PDCEC requires that you have demonstrate earnest commitment to the so-called ordinary people, their views, ways, tastes etc. The demonstration involves a combination of cues, from choice of vocabulary to assertiveness and passive-aggression toward specific targets and to manner of expression. However, if you fail to convincingly demonstrate PDCEC, you will not be taken seriously or worse yet, as wolf in sheep's skin, or a traitor - no matter where you stand on the so-called issues.
My problem on this list is that I detest populism of any variety - which earns me scorn of those who operate within the left-wing populism framework. It does not matter that we agree on 90 or so percent of the so-called issues - what matters is that I do not show PDCEC. It is like being an effeminate red-blooded blue collar worker - you may do the same work as others do, you may go to the same pub as others go, you may live where they do, you may belong to the same union and stand on the same picket line - but you act like a fucking faggot and that is all that matters - they will hate you for that no matter what else you do or say.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."